The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cannot deny compensation under the head of loss of future income merely because the claimant's salary has been protected pursuant to being assigned a lower position/reduction in post after a road accident.

The court said that reliance on pay protection benefit without examining the loss of opportunities to the claimant amounts to an error.

Justice K V Aravind, allowing two appeals in part, remitted the matter to the tribunal for determining the loss of future income, and also enhanced compensation under several other heads.

The two appeals challenged a common MACT award in two claims petitions, which granted compensation to the appellants, except under the head of loss of future income.

The appellants— who worked as a driver and a driver-cum-conductor at North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC)— met with a road accident in 2016, causing them injuries which rendered them disqualified for the post of drivers. The Corporation then assigned them the role of Attender, without reducing their income.

“The post of Attender and driver cannot be considered equal posts. Though pay protection is given, there is a reduction in category, which is lower than the post of driver. If the claimants had continued as driver-cum-conductor and driver respectively, it would have been attached with certain perquisites, which the claimants would be deprived of,” Justice KV Aravind said.

He added, “Hypothetically, the claimants had an option to resign or retire voluntarily or on superannuation and continue to work as skilled drivers. These prospects are no longer available in view of the disqualification suffered due to the accidental injuries. The Tribunal, while considering this issue, committed an error in placing much reliance on the pay protection without examining the opportunities that are deprived to the claimants.”

The Court found that the change in work from driver to attendant was evidence of functional disability, adding that 15% should be considered as the functional disability for the purpose of compensation in both cases.

The Court enhanced the compensation granted by the tribunal by Rs 17,000 in both cases and remitted the case to MACT for undertaking the “limited exercise” of determining the loss of future income.

Case: CHANDRAKANTH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS, MFA No. 200873/2021

MAHANTESH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS, MFA NO. 200772/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order